Shelby County suburban school facilities to be discussed

The Shelby County Board of Education is expected to meet soon to address an issue that looms large as suburban municipalities prepare to break away from Shelby County Schools: What to do about school buildings.

The discussion could include the related issue of where students who live outside municipal boundaries but within current suburban school attendance zones will go to school once municipal districts are developed.

"We've heard that the planning division of Shelby County Schools has been doing a study of the impact it would have on the school system if current attendance zones were maintained or the county system decided to keep those students," said Arlington Mayor Mike Wissman, a former member of the school board.

Supt. Dorsey Hopson did not respond to a request for a comment, and neither issue has appeared on the board's official agenda, but Hopson and Shelby County Schools attorney Valerie Speakman have been meeting with individual board members and suburban municipal leaders to lay the groundwork for such a discussion.

Board member David Reaves, who penned a blog entry last July titled, "For Goodness Sake — Let's put the school buildings issue to bed," said one possible scenario has the board discussing potential contracts with suburban municipalities at its Oct. 22 work session.

"We're getting ready to start planning for school next year," Reaves said. "This (issue) really has to be resolved before we can do that in earnest."

Angst over suburban school buildings dates to the beginning of the municipal school district movement, which was driven by the determination of many suburban leaders and residents to steer clear of the new unified Memphis and Shelby County district.

Feasibility studies showed that obtaining school buildings at little or no cost was critical to the viability of suburban districts. Critics of that approach contend that taxpayers throughout Shelby County paid to build suburban schools and should be compensated at fair market value if the buildings are to be given up.

It has been noted, however, that allies of the suburban school district movement in the General Assembly may step in to resolve the issue before local leaders have had a chance to work out a deal.

The board is scheduled to hold a retreat on Oct. 16 to discuss a variety of issues. But waiting for the Oct. 22 work sessions would allow the public to comment.

Board chairman Kevin Woods said legal ramifications limit discussions at this point; however, "I have indicated to the superintendent that the sooner we have this public conversation the better."

In his blog post in July, Reaves noted that there are "lots of great ideas to be explored," but "we have this continual cloud hanging over our heads," referring to how school buildings in municipal school districts are to be dealt with.

One of the suggested resolutions, he noted, is to require municipalities to buy the buildings within their boundaries and assume their share of the liability for employees' other post-employment benefits, as well.

"However, the unfortunate fallacy of that argument rears its head in go-forward funding for the SCS district," he wrote. "If you make (a municipal school district) pay for buildings and assume liability for OPEB, you have created a pretty good case for them to no longer pay into the county tax rate for county education. This would be a disaster for county school funding.

"Then there are some (like me) who believe that collaborative government rules the day. That means that we agree that all of the taxpayers up to this point have invested tax dollars for the good of all children. And that going forward, we will continue to do so. Maximizing idle resources and infrastructure makes the most sense to get the most out of a county tax dollar. That means that we share things like (information technology), nutrition, (special education) services, and BUILDINGS."